A young lothario is on trial for killing a woman's husband when he catches them together after an evening at a singles bar. A reluctant juror must make up his mind about the suspect's guilt based on a number of criterea.

9 Responses to Episode 0504

A film and star promoter is on the verge of his media breakthrough when he is called for jury duty. He wants to get out of it, but his significant other, and all those around him, encourage him to perform his duty as a citizen. He reluctantly agrees and finds himself the deciding vote in a strange murder trial. The victim's wife says their house was invaded, he tried to rape her, and when her husband came home, he murdered him and ran. The defendant claims that he was invited by the wife to her house and propositioned. When the husband came home he was furious and the shooting was an accident during the struggle for the gun. Can the juror tell the actor from the truth-teller?

Harold

Since this is a "whodunnit" without an official solution, I'll venture a guess. SPOILERS: didn't do it, he was, indeed, framed. Murder was out of character, stalking someone to rape them was out of character, carrying a gun was out of character. He had plenty of luck picking up women in bars, why break into someone's house and assault them? Why in the world would he need to carry a gun? By everyone's admission, he was a big, strong guy (could "break someone in half like a twig"), so it's not too believable that he needed a gun to get his way.

Mike

A fairly good story about jury duty. Having been on it myself once the premise is plausible (even if I wasn't on a murder trial). Listening to this story I don't really have a good clue as to the guilt of one over the other, probably ending in a hung jury is my guess. I do admit that the man's story sounded slightly more plausible than hers, but mainly because he didn't seem to have a record of breaking into houses. I did find that listening to the thoughts of the other jurors when I was on a jury helped clarify some issues that I had and helped clarify my thoughts - it all depends on the evidence, then the testimony (and who you believe).

Alec

You'll either find this fascinating or frustrating depending on how you feel about open ended endings. It reminded me of those "club room" stories like "One Hundred in the Dark" or some of those slightly sinister Somerset Maugham stories. I found it well acted, realistic and suspenseful. But be prepared to do some thinking during and after.

James

I pay attention to detail and this story does not add up period. Including the officer and his testimony. First of all, the police officer said he got a call of a report of a fight in progress. Who called the police? No mention of that! Was not loud enough to call the police. Had music on and Howard would not want to be loud if he was going to rape her. The police officer also said he shot a warning shot and told Howard to raise his hands high and don't move. No mention to drop the gun first. The officer also said he heard a shot, not shots. The front door was also locked and the officer could not get in. I find it hard to believe the husband would come home at 11 at night and come in the back door? If it was so loud, the husband would have came rushing in the front door to find out what the disturbance was when he pulled in. Then the husband would lock the front door after coming in his house? According to Howard, he said he ordered a drink at the bar. I Find it odd the bartender could remember what drink Howard ordered. Howard said in his testimony that he told the bartender "the same way again" when getting a refill but the bartender could not remember either of them in the bar later? How did Howard in his testimony know the maid was off on Thursday or they had a maid for that matter? Where is the evidence of the house being broke into? Was there any evidence of the house being broken into? Window broken,etc? The front door was locked. Was Howard's car parked at the residence? If Howard was at the bar, how would have he got to her house if he was at the bar first? Howard was trying to run away, not drive away!According to her testimony, her husband was in Portland! No mention if her husband ever went to Portland in the trial. Howard also said the Husband was going to kill his wife and said watch me kill my wife! The husband is going to kill his wife in front of Howard a complete stranger? That is hard to believe. Since the bartender does not remember any of them at the bar and Howard also saying the husband said, I will kill my wife because she is a tramp right in front of Howard is not believable. I would lean toward Howard being guilty of murdering her husband. Need more evidence to say he was guilty for sure.

Don Heiland,Jr.

I totally love this episode and give it five stars, (if that's the highest level). It is really fascinating the way they have the story play out from both points of view, with flashbacks and different people's testimony. This has always been a favorite episode of mine, (although I have lots of favorites). This one is one of the most interesting episodes in the series. I love the way they leave you guessing who did it at the end and they never tell you, but it's frustrating at the same time.
I am not sure who is guilty, but I tend to side with Howard, the accused. Something about his tone of voice when he says he was innocent at the trial sounds genuine to me and the wife sounds like she is hamming up her testimony. I get the feeling she is acting because she is overly dramatic and the man (Howard) sounds genuine to me. Also, there is one point where she hesitates in what she is saying and I get the feeling she is lying. However, I could be wrong. That's what makes this episode so interesting. You can listen to it again and change your mind, or hear details you didn't notice before. I could listen to this one many times and it wouldn't get boring and I might never have the answer as to who is guilty. A true classic, in my opinion.

Amy

I FINALLY found the episode of CBSRMT that takes place at a trial and the jury is trying to discover whether the accused really did the murder. What makes this episode really fascinating is the way they play out the same story several times with different testimonies and points of view. Then the jury has to decide who is telling the truth, the accused or the woman accusing him. At the end, we never find out if the accused actually did it because we're on the jury too and they don't tell us what the remaining juror finally decided. It was up to him to sway the vote one way or the other, so in the end, the listener gets to decide. It is very interesting and one of the best episodes, in my opinion. This is a true classic and truly worth a listen.

Lou

Hi CBSRMT gang. I struck me today I've been listening to these shows just about every day for at least 10 years now. Working through them from top to bottom and back again. They're my go-to ear candy for sitting in traffic. I'm sure there are lots of you out there that share this sentiment.

Karl

I enjoyed the episode, even with an ambiguous ending. By the way, I'm shocked that no one noticed Ralph Bell in the Buick commercial!

Dan in South Jersey

Leave a comment

Radio shows from the golden era of broadcasting are part of "Old Time Radio", or "otr." During the Golden Age of Radio, listeners gathered by their radio to enjoy their favorite radio programs. Radio Mystery Theater (1974-82) was a resurgence of the nostalgia of those radio days.

LISTEN TO RADIO MYSTERY THEATER

Those who experienced the old time radio will enjoy listening to these programs for nostalgia, but a new generation of listeners and fans are discovering CBSRMT for the first time and are finding they love Radio Mystery Theater Episodes and Old Time Radio Downloads!